A Democrat Friend of Mine Proposed

See the WaPo’s piece in which the Obama and McCain tax plans are compared at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/06/09/ST2008060900950.html

It’s simple enough – if you make less than $226,981 per year then your taxes go down under Obama’s plan. If you’re one of those lucky enough to have a personal income in the top 5% tax bracket, you’re taxes are going up.

In a nation where the ratio of CEO pay to that of the average employee is 465:1, this doesn’t bother me in the least. Wealth redistribution is *not* exclusively within the domain of socialism, rather by definition it’s a part of any system of taxation. What’s important to me is that this system be fair. Is it fair that in 2007 Steve Jobs’ income was more than $640 Million? That’s more than 5,000 times what I made in 2007. So… maybe, maybe not. I think it is – he’s very good at what he does – but that’s just me. However, he would never be in such a position without benefit of the hundreds of shoulders upon which he rode, and was able to do so because of us taxpayers. Warren Buffet has written/spoken a number of times on what’s called The Myth of the Self-Made Man. One obvious example: no tax money, no DARPA. No DARPA, no Internet.

Jobs can afford to kick in a little extra for his very fortunate (and fortune is the right root word) circumstances. It is when we taxpayers assume all the risk but reap none of the benefits that our kind of government is called something other than democracy.

And that doesn’t even mention the $440,000 in taxpayer dollars recently spent on the executive management retreat in Palm Springs by AIG. In 2006 McCain voted for Bush’s privatization of social security. Assume for a moment that you don’t have the benefit of hindsight where literally tens of thousands who now rely on social security as a source of income (about 28% of households in ‘Joe the Plumber’s neighborhood, it appears) would be in even more serious financial difficulty *IF* privatization had occurred. In the words of Sam Harris, “It would seem that many a camel would expect to pass through the eye of a needle on Wall Street.” Do you support the GOP direction of privatization? Is this in alignment with your own “presuppositions”? Speaking of these – you mention them three times in your last reply – can you layout for me what your presuppositions consist of?

My Response

I like the WaPo graph – very simple. I like the Republican’s side of the graph better than I like the Democrat’s side. I very much echo your sentiments “What’s important to me is that this system be fair.” I believe the Republican proposes a (more) fair tax proposal and that the Democrat proposes a tax proposal that allows voters to vote themselves “more gifts from the treasury.”

This is one of those areas where our presuppositions clearly come into effect. How does one determine what is “fair”? You even begin drilling into this with the Steve Jobs analogy. Is it fair that Steve makes so much more money that we do? For that matter is it fair that anyone make more money than I, or that I make more money than anyone else? To bring it into perspective, you and I are some of the richest people on the face of the earth (top 5%) is that fair?

I grew up in a trailer park in Mississippi, a friend lived in the same trailer park. According to High school Transcripts he (graduating with a 3.? gpa)  was smarter than I (graduating with a 2.? gpa) more athletic than I, and all-round better looking and well liked. His mom was single parent and thus he qualified for “free lunches” throughout school, while my father worked two jobs and my mother worked one and I remember distinctly wondering each week how we would pay for my lunches and being jealous that he didn’t have to worry about that.  He subsequently obtained a government scholarship and went to college (was that fair that the government sent him to college and not I?) while I joined the Army.

He graduated college with a bachelor’s degree and 20 years later continues in the exact same job (literally, same company, same shift, and stands in the same place on the line) he had when we graduated high school. I believe he is now making ~ $17/hr with minimal vacation and benefits. On the other hand, I make significantly more money, have phenomenal benefits, and an enviable vacation package. Is it fair that I prosper while he does not? Is it fair that I will have a nice nest egg when I retire and he will continue to be living on a social security fixed income?

Is it fair that he received far more funds from the government coffers than I? Is it fair that he did so little with what he did receive and failed to profit from it and ultimately fails to put back into it what he took out of it? Is it fair that I, who benefited far less from the government coffers am required to put an overwhelmingly large amount back into those coffers? I paid more in federal taxes last year than my buddy makes in year, and the year before that, and the year before that, and the year before that, and ….

My hermeneutic convicts me that this is all “fair”, a good worldview should transition well across domains though.

How do our presuppositions transition to other topics outside of money? (Fame, Knowledge, Art, Wisdom, etc.)

Some will naturally have skills that other will not naturally have. Some will be afforded opportunities that others will not. Some will leverage their skills while others will choose not to. Some will take advantage of opportunities that others missed. If this didn’t occur, we would all end up being carbon copies of each other with no diversity and essentially no individuality. The result of the diversity in personality/talent/motivation/etc is that some will “profit” more than others – and I believe that this is “fair”.

I believe this view transitions well across domains. I consider it fair that:

· Tesla understood Electricity and Magnetism better than I ever will
· Marshall Bruce Mathers III (aka Eminem, Slim Shady) is a far better lyricist than I
· Leonardo da Vinci was far more brilliant that I
· Christopher Columbus more famous
· Alexander was a greater strategist
· Epaminondas a more skilled tactician

Others propose a core belief that this is “unfair”. Perhaps they have an altruistic view of “all men are created equal”, or perhaps they resent the fact that others have “more” or “better” than they have.  

These people might propose that due to the fact that Skeeter is more wealthy than they are, Skeeter’s wealth should be redistributed such that they share in Skeeter’s profit.

Or that, if playing a game of chess with Alexander, he should be penalized in order to allow them to obtain a draw. Perhaps by sharing his strategy with them and working out an opposing strategy that would neutralize his own.

Well, the exercise quickly becomes fruitless, because it is impractical to redistribute brilliance, fame, skill, etc. like that – pragmatically speaking, it is just silliness. At this point, the majority will begin qualifying fairness and we quickly discover that individual’s have a highly relativistic sense of fairness that results in collectively relativistic senses of fairness. Fuel the relativistic sense of fairness with an innate sense of self centeredness – and “fair” becomes boiled down to “ok if it doesn’t overly impact me, even if it does overly impact you”.

Or as you put it, “In a nation where the ratio of CEO pay to that of the average employee is 465:1, this doesn’t bother me in the least. ”

It does bother me. Tax Brackets provide a simplified view of the current tax system. Basically, the more taxable income you make, the larger percentage that you donate to the national coffers. Here is how the brackets change in 2008.

For married couples filing jointly*
If taxable income is at least . . .	But not more than . . .	Your tax is:
$0	$16,050	10% of the amount over $0
$16,051	$65,100	$1,605 plus 15% of the amount over $16,050
$65,101	$131,450	$8,962.50 plus 25% of the amount over $65,100
$131,451	$200,300	$25,550 plus 28% of the amount over $131,450
$200,301	$357,700	$44,828 plus 33% of the amount over $200,300
$357,701	No limit	$96,770 plus 35% of the amount over $357,700
* Or qualifying widow or widower

According to the WAPO table

60% of the taxpayers fall in the under $66K family income per year or the bottom two tax brackets. Which means that the majority of people paying taxes in our country are donating 10% of their income or $1,605 plus 15% of the amount over $16,050 to the federal coffers in an effort to support our country.

Skeeter falls into that 60% so, the maximum amount in real dollars that Skeeter will donate is roughly $9,000 this year.

Bubba doesn’t fit that 60%. Bubba fits into the $44,828 plus 33% of the amount over $200,300. To maintain the same comparison as with the 60%, the maximum amount in real dollars that Bubba will donate is $97,000, not quite 11 times more cold hard cash than Skeeter. Can we claim in this context that Bubba is doing 10x more to financially support America than 60% of Americans?

Let us assume that Mr. Jobs grossed $640 Million, and further assume (for the sake of argument) that only half of it ($320M) was taxable. If the math is correct, according to the 2008 tax bracket, we expect Mr. Jobs will donate $111,971,575.00 to the national coffers. In this context, is that roughly 12,441x more than 60% of taxpaying Americans?

While the rate of CEO Taxable income to average Employee income may indeed be 465:1, it appears that the CEO’s are likely providing fiscal support to the nation at a far greater ratio than the Employee’s are.

The Democrat’s plan says, “We as a nation will allow Skeeter to knock $1K off his taxes, decreasing the total he is expected to donate to the coffers to $8,000 this year (a 12% decrease). Bubbas donations to the coffers appear to be fine, let us not change it. Mr. Jobs can “afford to kick in a little extra” so let us increase his expected donation to 112,673,460.00 this year (0.63% increase).”

Under this plan, Bubba now does slightly over 12x more than 60% of Americans to fiscally support the nation, and Mr. Jobs is doing 14,084x more than 60% of taxpaying Americans?

You claim that this doesn’t bother you in the least while at the same time stating that “What’s important to me is that this system be fair”. We will then assume that this situation does indeed meet with your definition of fairness, and you continue to feel that we should agree he can “afford to kick in a little extra”. We will also infer that you believe the Republican’s proposition to be, perhaps not unfair, but certainly less fair than the Democrat proposition.

The Republican’s plan says, “We as a nation will allow Skeeter to knock $319 off his taxes, decreasing the total he is expected to donate to the coffers to $8,681 this year (a 3.5% decrease). Bubba’s donations to the coffers will be cut by $4,380, the total he is expected to donate to the coffers to $92,620 this year (a 4.5% decrease). Mr. Jobs has already done a significant amount to support our nation, so let us decrease his expected donation by $269,364 – to $111,702,211 this year (a 0.24% decrease).”

I believe we would both agree that those who are smarter, faster, more clever, luckier, and/or ultimately more profitable have a greater responsibility to use their gifts and resources than those who are less fortunate (I liked your observation regarding the root word!). In all fairness I would prefer a flat percentage tax across the board – the result of which could/would be that those who are more fortunate would continue to provide a greater contribution than those who are less fortunate. Unfortunately, that approach has been deemed impractical and the majority (60%) would be more inconvenienced than the minority.

My presuppositions lead me to believe the Republican’s plan is aimed at a greater degree of fairness while the Democrat’s plan targets a pragmatic approach. I feel that both plans pander to the public in an attempt to sway those whose votes can be “bought”, and that the Democrat is proposing a better deal to a greater majority of those voters. I’d personally prefer for them to keep taxes as they currently are and not screw around with “reducing” taxes – short of a massive/major overhaul of the system, which isn’t likely. We can conclude with me maintaining that the opposite of your position, in that I believe the Republican plan to be “more fair” and the Democrats plan to be “less fair”?

If so, we both have the same facts/information in front of us, and come to different conclusions due to our presuppositions regarding what fair is and how it is defined.

With regards to wealth redistribution, you state that it “is *not* exclusively within the domain of socialism, rather by definition it’s a part of any system of taxation”. I concur that it is not exclusively in the domain of socialism. I can even follow that “by definition” it is part of any system of tax. However, the question begs itself, “At what point does wealth redistribution become socialist?” What percentage of the fortunate’s fortune can a government take and redistribute to the less fortunate without  being confused as socialist, and what percentage “crosses the line”?

Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and creates an unequal society. All socialists advocate the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly, although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how, and to what extent this could be achieved.

Newman, Michael. (2005) Socialism: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-280431-6

Is it inappropriate to observe that many Democrats share the belief that Republicans unfairly concentrate power and wealth among a small segment of Americans that controls capitol and creates and unequal society? If it isn’t unfair to make that statement and you begin coupling this observation with the current and proposed “wealth redistribution” in America – then the question regarding at what point we become socialist gains momentum. Each of us will have a view (presupposition) regarding socialism that feeds our collective answer to that question, some will set the percentage lower and others will set it higher.

With regards to those tens of thousands who now rely on the us Social Security services as a source of income, I personally wish the government had stayed out of it and that the various Social Security programs had been aborted prior to seeing the light of day back in 1935.

Please don’t get me wrong, I do not begrudge those who rely on it their benefits. Many of my aunts and uncles are dependent upon it and they all paid into it as we all do. I’m for them benefiting. As I have personally been required to pay into the program myself, I’d like to see some benefit from it as well. If I were allowed to take the money I’ve been required to put into SS and opt-out of the program for a privatized program – I would do so in heart beat. Ultimately, yes – I like the idea of privatizing it.

I don’t like the idea of the government “taking from the rich and giving to the poor” – even if the argument is that the rich “can afford to kick in a little extra”. The government should see to it that the wealthy are abiding by the laws of the land, and not profiteering off the poor or otherwise oppressing them. This does not mean that I believe the more fortunate shouldn’t “share the wealth” but that I believe the government shouldn’t force said “sharing of the wealth”. The greedy should be allowed to be greedy in as much as they are abiding by the laws in amassing their fortune. The magnanimous should be allowed to share as much of their fortune as they desire as well.

Tracey and I regularly give 10-15% of our gross income to assist the poor and the needy each year. We do not give any significant amount of that to a particular church, charity, or other organization that manages the payouts. In particular, we look for opportunities in our community (50 mile radius) to assist the elderly and the poor. We buy and install appliances for them, repair their homes, buy food and occasionally prepare it for them, have spent numerous hours working with recovering addicts and alcoholics, etc.

We are currently adopting three American children (4,3,2 years old) who were all born and come with – issues. Not simply because we desire more children, but because we are convicted that this is the correct thing to do with our time and resources. Perhaps one might take this as bragging; however, I offer it up as I feel comfortable that my lifestyle will bear out scrutiny to reveal a charitable heart. None the less, in much the same way as I don’t appreciate large charities dictating how my wealth gets distributed – I don’t appreciate my government dictating how my wealth gets distributed – I’d prefer to do the distributing myself.

OK, this might not have been the best investment I ever made in a book.

90% of the information in this book was easily figured out by myself just simple messing around with the application. There were three distinct pieces of information that got me excited, and ultimately saved me enough time that I think I broke even.

If you are a complete novice to MS Office products or if you have no idea what XML is and how it might work, then this book might be good for you.

I tend to think that most of us are far enough advanced that we don’t need to be spoon fed the milk that this book provides. Ergo, I’m not recommending it.

ISBN #: 0-07-223127-0 

Recommended?: No

You saw the Dwalt Nail Gun for the guys – thanks to Meg, this one here is for the ladies!

Pocket Taser Stun Gun, a great gift for the wife.  A guy who purchased his lovely wife a pocket Taser for their anniversary submitted this:

Last weekend I saw something at Larry’s Pistol & Pawn Shop that sparked my interest.  The occasion was our 15th anniversary and I was looking for a little something extra for my wife Julie.  What I came across was a 100,000 volt, pocket/purse sized taser.  The effects of the taser were supposed to be short lived, with no long-term adverse affect on your assailant, allowing her adequate time to retreat to safety…. WAY TOO COOL! Long story short, I bought the device and brought it home. I loaded two AAA batteries in the darn thing and pushed the button. Nothing! I was disappointed. I learned, however, that if I pushed the button AND pressed it against a metal surface at the same time; I’d get the blue arc of electricity darting back and forth between the prongs. AWESOME!!! Unfortunately, I have yet to explain to Julie what that burn spot is on the face of her microwave. Okay, so I was home alone with this new toy, thinking to myself that it couldn’t be all that bad with only two triple-A batteries, right? There I sat in my recliner, my cat Gracie looking on intently (trusting little soul) while I was reading the directions and thinking that I really needed to try this thing out on a flesh & blood moving target. I must admit I thought about zapping Gracie (for a fraction of a second) and thought better of it. She is such a sweet cat. But, if I was going to give this thing to my wife to protect herself against a mugger, I did want some assurance that it would work as advertised. Am I wrong? So, there I sat in a pair of shorts and a tank top with my reading glasses perched delicately on the bridge of my nose, directions in one hand, and taser in another. The directions said that a one-second burst would shock and disorient your assailant; a two-second burst was supposed to cause muscle spasms and a major loss of bodily control; a three-second burst would reportedly make your assailant flop on the ground like a fish out of water.  Any burst longer than three seconds would be wasting the batteries. All the while I’m looking at this little device measuring about 5 inches long, less than 3/4 inch in circumference; pretty cute really and loaded with two itsy, bitsy triple-A batteries) thinking to myself, ‘no possible way!’ What happened next is almost beyond description, but I’ll do my best…? I’m sitting there alone, Gracie looking on with her head cocked to one side as to say, ‘don’t do it idgit,’ reasoning that a one second burst from such a tiny little ole thing couldn’t hurt all that bad. I decided to give myself a one second burst just for heck of it. I touched the prongs to my naked thigh, pushed the button, and . . . HOLY MOTHER OF GOD WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION . . . WHAT THE!!! I’m pretty sure Jessie Ventura ran in through the side door, picked me up in the recliner, then body slammed us both on the carpet, over and over and over again. I vaguely recall waking up on my side in the fetal position with tears in my eyes, body soaking wet, both nipples on fire, testicles nowhere to be found, with my left arm tucked under my body in the oddest position, and tingling in my legs? The cat was making meowing sounds I had never heard before, clinging to a picture frame hanging above the fireplace, obviously in an attempt to avoid getting slammed by my body flopping all over the living room. Note: If you ever feel compelled to ‘mug’ yourself with a taser, one note of caution: there is no such thing as a one second burst when you zap yourself! You will not let go of that thing until it is dislodged from your hand by a violent thrashing about on the floor. A three second burst would be considered conservative? *(^%#@, THAT HURT!!! A minute or so later (I can’t be sure, as time was a relative thing at that point), I collected my wits (what little I had left), sat up and surveyed the landscape. My bent reading glasses were on the mantel of the fireplace. The recliner was upside down and about 8 feet or so from where it originally was. My triceps, right thigh and both nipples were still twitching. My face felt like it had been shot up with Novocain, and my bottom lip weighed 88 lbs.. I had no control over the drooling. Apparently, I soiled myself, but was too numb to know for sure and my sense of smell was gone. I saw a faint smoke cloud above my head which I believe came from my hair.

http://www.snopes.com/humor/follies/taser.asp

Perhaps I spoke to soon last week, it appears that I’m not really in the clear yet. Although the ear, nose, and throat issues have faded into history, the cough persists. It wouldn’t be so bad I suppose, but when I cough I produce “red stuff” that seems highly unnatural.

Went back to the Dr. this morning  and finally got in to see my family doctor, first week was some Dr. at Urgent Care (said it was a virus), then last week my Dr. wasn’t available so her colleague (said whooping cough) at the same office saw me.

They took pictures of my lungs again, and everyone agrees that it isn’t pneumonia. They reviewed the meds I took last week, and everyone agrees that if it “was” whooping cough, it isn’t anymore. She decided it is most likely some type of post bronchial cough (much like this guy writes about) and gave me a steroid shot (in the rear! They still do that to adults!?) and prescribed some prednisone.

As an afterthought (I mentioned the CPap Machine) she decided to prescribe some additional antibiotics (Levaquin) in case my breathing machine (which I must admit, I’m not the most diligent about cleaning) has introduced something more exotic (she mentioned Legionnaires’ Disease).

If I’m not better by Friday morning, I call her and we set up the CT Scans and start doing the more in-depth diagnosis. So – ya’ll pray for me to get better by Friday morning, eh?

This has now moved to the top of my 2008 Christmas Wish List!

A new Nail Gun, made by Dewalt, has just been introduced. It can drive a 16-D nail through a 2 X 4 at 200 yards. This makes construction a breeze, you can sit in your lawn chair and build a fence. Just get your wife to hold the fence boards in place while you sit back, relax with a cold drink and when she has the board in the right place, just fire away. With the hundred round magazine, you can build the fence with a minimum of reloading. After a day of fence building with the new Dewalt Rapid fire nail gun, the wife will not ask you build or fix anything else again.

….. were greatly exaggerated! I was really only ever almost-dead (see ref) and am now certainly only nearly dead! Last week, I had a virus which turned into something more this week.

For those who may not have heard, the Dr. proposed I either have Whooping Cough or Pneumonia, either of which we were in the very early stages of and the same antibiotic would take care of. To that end, I’m three days into a full course of the antibiotic (well, this afternoon will mark the fourth day) and certainly appear to be on the mend.

Fortunately, no one else in the family seems to be of such a low constitution as I. Beth struggled with the cold a few days last week and got better. Ethan was a bit sick over the weekend, but hasn’t missed any school and seem just fine. Tracey contracted an ungodly earache that persisted through the weekend and early week – though she seem better now and only slightly more hard of hearing than she previously was.

All in all, it seems that I’m on the mend. I did take the last two days off for convalescence and Tommy (being on vacation) provided me a few fantasy novels (Robin Hobb – Soldier Son Trilogy) to read and I’ve managed to escape reality through them quite effectively.

Thanks for all your emails, phone calls, and chats! I appreciate your well wishes .. and for those who were unaware, I apologize that that word didn’t get to you sooner.